ML102990209

Email from Gray, Harold to Conte, Richard, Et Al, Salem AFW Questions - Conf Call 4/28/10 Pm.

ML102990209
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	04/28/2010
From:	Gray H - No Known Affiliation
To:	Conte R Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334
Download: ML102990209 (3)

Text

'Gray,ýHarold From: Gray, Harold Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:24 PM To: Conte, Richard Cc: Burritt, Arthur; Modes, Michael

Subject:

Salem AFW questions - Conf Call 4/28/2010 PM During the HQ-RI conference call on 4/28 the following 4 questions were noted regarding the U1-U2 AFW missed buried piping IWA-5244 tests.

--For the Ul structural integrity evaluation what is the contribution of seismic induced stresses? This is to establish the magnitude of the seismic stresses in comparison to the pressure induced stresses. It is expected that the pressure induced stresses will be the dominant stress source.

--For the U1 finite. element analysis, confirm that the area of compensation for the missing material at the deepest pit ( 0.077") was within the Code caculational requirements.

--For the AFW pipe coating done on U2 determine:

What coating was put on the pipe?

How long was thei coating expected to be effective?

--Does the final Operability Evaluation for the U2 AFw buried piping adequately use the known condition of the U2 AFW pipe coating and the inputs from the UI observations, measurements and analysis to confirm operability of U2 AFW until the IWA-5244 tests are done at the next U2 RFO.

CjI 19.

frc5~/-4J Gray, Harold From: Roberts, Darrell Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:33 PM To: Modes, Michael Cc: Conte, Richard; Gray, Harold

Subject:

RE: Salem AFW Piping Thanks, Michael.

DJR From: Modes, Michael Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:36 PM To: Roberts, Darrell Cc: Conte, Richard; Gray, Harold

Subject:

Salem AFW Piping The issues were extensively discussed during a lengthy telephone conference with NRR staff this afternoon.

There are no immediate safety issues.

We are going to engage the licensee technical staff on four residual questions.

Was the seismic input considered in. the structural integrity analysis?

What was the basis for the averaging of loads on the piping analysis?

What documented evidence can you supply to show a coating was applied to the Unit. 2 AFW piping?

What does the supplier of the coating suggest is the life of the coating?

/'The issue of technical specification, ASME vs surviellance, was resolved with the Tech Spec Branch on the line. ASME is invoked "in isolation" in the tech spec and does not connect to surviellance nor, in turn, LCO.

All this was conveyed to Art Burret who agreed with the stated postion and agreed to assist in setting up a staff-to-staff discussion on the above points with PSEG.

1